Two Lessons in Reading the Picture: John Ruskin vs. Roger Fry
In: Exploring Visual Literacy Inside, Outside and Through the FrameSearch for other papers by Aleksandra Piasecka in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
The chapter contrasts two different methods of interpreting visual works of art. On the one hand, it discusses the approach put forward by a prominent Victorian critic John Ruskin (1819-1900), on the other one, the method proposed by Roger Fry (1866-1934), a member of the Bloomsbury Group. Each of them is the author of two texts about Giotto: the former wrote ‘Giotto and his Works in Padua’ and Mornings in Florence, the latter ‘Giotto’ and ‘Telling a Story.’ To the frescoes discussed by both belong Pietà and Noli me tangere from the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua. Comparing the descriptions of these works of art, it becomes evident that Ruskin was in favour of painting which could be read from the angle of the depicted history. In contrast to his predecessor, Fry concentrated on formal elements as the main means of expressing emotions and conveying the message. Yet, the late lecture of Fry illustrates the shift which occurred in his beliefs, since the ekphrasis has a long quotation from the Bible as a point of departure. In this respect, as well as in the distance kept from purely mimetic art, Fry’s stance does not differ radically from that of Ruskin. The considerable disparity, however, remains in Ruskin’s understanding of moral function of art.